GHANA’S PUBLIC SECTOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: BEYOND KPIs TOWARDS AN AGILE MIND-RESET

 INTRODUCTION

Modern government was built on measurement. The metrics that enabled the state to scale, standardise, and control complex administrative systems were once among its greatest strengths. In the era of digital transformation, however, those same metrics risk holding it back.

Today, digital transformation is not just a technical exercise — it is a mindset reset. While governments often focus on digitising services or adopting new tools, the deeper challenge lies in how institutions think, learn, and adapt. In Ghana, the President’s RESET Agenda signals a bold ambition to reimagine how the state delivers public value. But that ambition cannot be achieved through legacy performance systems built for predictability and control. It requires a shift — from managing for compliance to governing for learning. And that shift begins with an Agile mind-reset.

For decades, the public sector has relied on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to ensure accountability, consistency, and responsible stewardship of public resources. KPIs translate policy intent into targets, performance into numbers, and managerial oversight into dashboards. They have supported the delivery of services at scale, reinforced compliance, and provided assurance in environments where work was largely predictable and repeatable. In that context, KPIs made sense.

KPIs are designed for conditions in which objectives can be clearly defined upfront, activities planned accordingly, and success assessed by how closely execution aligns with expectation. Much of traditional public administration fits this model, and abandoning it wholesale would be neither realistic nor desirable.

Digital transformation, however, operates under fundamentally different conditions.

In the public sector, it is often mistaken for the digitisation of existing processes or the introduction of new technologies. In reality, it represents a deeper shift: in how policy intent is translated into services, how citizens interact with the state, how data informs decisions, and how organisations respond to social, economic, and technological change. It cuts across institutional boundaries, exposes long-hidden inefficiencies, and challenges established assumptions about how work gets done.

Most importantly, digital transformation is inherently uncertain. Outcomes cannot be fully specified in advance. User behaviour is unpredictable. Technology evolves faster tn policy, governance, and funding cycles can respond. It is disruptive by nature, not incremental, and resists being contained within familiar planning frameworks. There is no stable “box” to think outside of, because the boundaries themselves are constantly shifting. In this environment, learning is not a preliminary phase of delivery; it is the delivery. Each insight changes the problem being solved, demanding not just new solutions, but a fundamentally different mindset.

This is where a fundamental tension emerges. When metrics designed for certainty and control are applied to complex, adaptive work, they create powerful but unintended consequences. Adherence to plan is rewarded over responsiveness to evidence. Early course correction is discouraged. Learning becomes risk. Deviation, even when justified by new insight, is treated as failure rather than progress.

Public organisations have turned to Agile approaches. An Agile approach assumes that complex problems cannot be fully understood upfront, and that progress emerges through experimentation, feedback, and continuous learning. It prioritises outcomes over outputs, evidence over prediction, and adaptation over strict adherence to plan. In this context, Agile is not simply a collection of delivery techniques or team rituals. At its core, it is a mindset for working in uncertainty.

Within a digital transformation environment, this mindset is critical. Technology, policy intent, and citizen behaviour interact in ways that cannot be fully anticipated. Agile approaches acknowledge this reality by treating assumptions as hypotheses to be tested, and by recognising that changing direction in response to evidence is not a failure of planning, but a sign of responsible governance.

Yet an Agile mindset cannot survive in isolation. It requires governance, funding, cultural alignment, and performance systems that support learning rather than certainty. When organisations attempt to “go Agile” while continuing to define success through rigid KPIs, Agile is reduced to surface-level practice. The language changes, but the behaviour does not.

This article calls for a shift from KPI-dominated definitions of success toward an Agile mindset grounded in learning, adaptation, and public value. While traditional performance management has served well in stable, predictable environments, it now constrains responsiveness and suppresses learning in the face of digital transformation. Drawing on insights from systems thinking, public value, Agile delivery, and evidence-based policy, the article synthesises four categories of Agile-aligned measures better suited to the complexity of public-sector digital transformation. It advances a dual-tier performance model—where internal KPIs maintain delivery discipline, while oversight bodies like SIGA adopt Agile-aligned metrics to assess public value, adaptability, and systemic health. This is not a rejection of measurement, but a call to reset it—as a tool for governing uncertainty and enabling accountability through learning in a digital era.

To understand why this shift is necessary, we must first examine why KPIs became so deeply embedded in public-sector governance—and what happens when they are applied beyond their original context.

THE COMFORT OF KPIs AND THE ILLUSION OF PROGRESS

KPIs offer something deeply attractive to policymakers and senior leaders: certainty. They work exceptionally well in environments where the boundaries of work are known and stable. Within such a “box,” objectives can be defined, processes standardised, risks anticipated, and performance measured against expectations. KPIs translate complexity into numbers, ambiguity into targets, and political risk into dashboards. They enable distance—progress can be reviewed without direct engagement with the messy reality of delivery.

In these conditions, KPIs are not just efficient; they are responsible. Tax collection, pension benefits administration, regulatory compliance, and public safety enforcement all depend on repeatability and consistency. Variation is risk. Predictability is a virtue. KPIs thrive precisely because the systems they measure are bounded, understood, and largely controllable.

Digital transformation dismantles these stable conditions. It does not simply introduce new tools; it alters the conditions under which work takes place. Citizen behaviour changes in response to digital services. Policy intent interacts with technology in unexpected ways. Legacy systems collide with modern platforms. Organisational boundaries blur as services span agencies and jurisdictions. The work becomes exploratory rather than repeatable.

In this environment, predictability collapses. Outcomes cannot be fully specified in advance. Assumptions will be wrong. Plans must change as understanding improves. Learning is not optional; it is the work.

When KPIs designed for certainty and control are applied to contexts defined by uncertainty, they produce predictable dysfunction. Plans appear “on track” until failure becomes unavoidable. Risks are managed politically rather than surfaced early. Learning is delayed because changing direction looks like underperformance. Teams optimise reports and milestones instead of outcomes and impact. Most damagingly, honesty becomes dangerous.

Under KPI-driven regimes, bad news travels slowly and good news travels fast—regardless of accuracy. This is not a cultural failing or a lack of integrity. It is a rational response to how performance is judged. When success is defined as adherence to plan, reality itself becomes a liability.

THE AGILE MINDSET AND WHY IT MATTERS IN PUBLIC SECTOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

Digital transformation in the public sector requires organisations to operate effectively in conditions of uncertainty, complexity, and continuous change. Traditional management approaches assume that problems can be clearly defined upfront, solutions designed in advance, and delivery executed according to plan. These assumptions hold in stable, repeatable environments. They break down when systems are complex, outcomes are emergent, and cause and effect cannot be reliably predicted.

Agile emerged as a response to precisely these conditions. Rather than treating uncertainty as a temporary inconvenience to be eliminated through better planning, Agile accepts uncertainty as a permanent feature of complex work. It provides a way of organising decision-making around learning, evidence, and adaptation, rather than prediction and control.

At its core, an Agile mindset is a way of thinking about work when certainty is not available. It recognises that complex problems cannot be fully understood at the outset, and that meaningful progress emerges through experimentation, feedback, and learning in real conditions. Agile delivers change through learning. It frames learning not as an academic exercise or a discrete phase of delivery, but as a means to better decisions and outcomes, with delivery and public value as the primary objective.

In practical terms, this requires a shift from outputs to outcomes, from compliance with plan to responsiveness to evidence, and from avoiding failure to learning quickly and safely. Assumptions are treated as hypotheses to be tested, rather than commitments to be defended. Change is not interpreted as poor planning, but as a rational and responsible response to new information.

This mindset is particularly relevant in public-sector digital transformation. Government services operate within complex social systems where policy intent, technology, organisational structures, and citizen behaviour interact in unpredictable ways. Digital platforms can amplify both intended and unintended consequences at scale. What appears effective in policy design or business cases may fail in real-world use, or produce outcomes very different from those anticipated. Without the ability to learn and adapt, digital transformation risks reinforcing existing problems rather than resolving them.

Importantly, an Agile mindset is not about moving faster for its own sake, nor about weakening accountability. It is about improving the quality of decision-making under uncertainty. It asks leaders to value evidence over optimism, learning over premature certainty, and outcomes over delivery theatre.

A government department may launch a digital service “on time” and mark it as a success, even if the service is poorly used, creates confusion, or fails to address the underlying citizen need. Because KPIs reward being “on track”, teams may mask problems, avoid course correction, or dress up outputs to meet expectations.

However, adopting this mindset requires more than new delivery practices or language. It demands governance, funding, culture alignment and performance systems that allow learning to occur without penalty, and that treat adaptation as responsible leadership rather than failure. Without this alignment, public-sector Agile initiatives can quickly begin to falter.

WHY AGILE FAILS IN KPI-DOMINATED SYSTEMS

Agile does not fail in the public sector because it is unsuited to government. It fails because it is introduced into systems designed to optimise certainty, while Agile exists to manage uncertainty. This misfit is not only structural, but cultural. Without the right cultural conditions—where learning is safe, adaptation valued, and feedback welcomed—Agile methods cannot take root.

KPI-dominated systems are built on a particular view of how work should behave. They assume that objectives can be clearly defined upfront, that delivery can be planned with reasonable accuracy, and that deviation from plan signals poor performance. In this model, success is measured through predictability, consistency, and adherence to predefined commitments.

Agile operates on fundamentally different assumptions. At its core, Agile assumes that:

·        Not all requirements are knowable upfront

·        Early plans will be wrong

·        Value emerges through feedback, testing, and iteration

·        Stopping, changing direction, or pivoting can represent success rather than failure

KPIs assume the opposite. They assume that requirements are knowable in advance, that plans should largely hold, that deviation indicates risk or underperformance, and that success lies in delivering what was promised, rather than discovering what actually works. In a KPI regime, learning is implicitly treated as evidence that the original plan was insufficient. When Agile is introduced into such an environment, the contradiction is immediate.

Teams may iterate locally, but strategic decisions remain locked in. Risks are identified but not acted upon. Evidence is gathered but not permitted to change direction. Agile practices may improve efficiency at the margins, but they do not alter organisational behaviour or decision-making.

Over time, the message to teams becomes unmistakable: Learning is welcome only when it confirms the plan. Adaptation is acceptable only within predefined boundaries. Honesty about uncertainty carries personal and political risk.

Agile fails in KPI-dominated systems not because the methods are flawed, but because the system actively suppresses the mindset Agile requires. When certainty is rewarded and learning is penalised, compliance will always outperform curiosity.

MEASUREMENT IS NOT THE ENEMY. ITS PURPOSE IS.

The solution is not to abandon measurement. The public sector rightly demands accountability, stewardship of public funds, and transparency. These expectations are non-negotiable in democratic systems and are central to public trust. The challenge lies not in whether we measure, but in what measurement is designed to achieve.

While KPIs remain relevant and effective in environments with stable, well-defined objectives—such as private sector or state enterprises focused on maximising shareholder value—they are less suited to the complexities of public sector work. In the private sector, where goals like profit targets, operational efficiency, and market share growth are largely quantifiable and predictable, KPIs offer a reliable means of tracking progress and ensuring performance.

Public value, by contrast, is multidimensional—encompassing equity, trust, access, justice, and other qualitative outcomes. It is context-sensitive, often emergent, and frequently co-produced by governments in collaboration with citizens, communities, and stakeholders. These outcomes are shaped by dynamic social and political conditions and cannot be fully anticipated or controlled. In this space, learning, adaptation, and responsiveness to evidence become more important than rigid adherence to plan. This is where an Agile measurement mindset is not just beneficial, but necessary—better suited to navigating complexity and delivering meaningful public outcomes.

Traditional KPIs are instruments of control. They are intended to reduce uncertainty by enforcing predictability, monitoring compliance with predefined plans, and signalling when performance deviates from expectation. In stable environments, this approach is both effective and appropriate.

An Agile mindset does not reject measurement. It redefines its purpose. In an Agile context, measurement exists to inform judgement rather than enforce compliance. Its role is to improve decision-making in the face of uncertainty, not to create the illusion that uncertainty has been eliminated. Agile measurement supports learning, reveals risk early, and helps leaders understand how systems are actually behaving, not how they were expected to behave.

In complex systems, measurement must enable sense-making rather than certainty. It should surface patterns, constraints, and unintended consequences. It should make reality visible, even when that reality is uncomfortable. Metrics that simply confirm optimism or protect plans actively undermine responsible governance.

Crucially, this approach does not weaken accountability. It strengthens it. Leaders are held accountable not for prediction, but for how they respond to evidence. Decisions are judged on the quality of learning and adaptation, not on adherence to assumptions that no longer hold.

RETHINKING MEASUREMENT FOR AN AGILE MINDSET

Experience across public-sector reform efforts shows that certain categories of measures enable adaptation without weakening accountability. Together, they move performance management away from control and compliance, and toward insight, learning, and the effective governance of change.

Rather than representing a new framework, these categories reflect a convergence of thinking from systems theory, public value, Agile delivery, and evidence-based policy traditions. Their shared concern is not prediction, but understanding how complex systems actually behave.

To support this shift, four broad categories of Agile-aligned measures have been synthesised—each providing a distinct lens on performance, and collectively enabling a more adaptive, outcome-focused approach to governance.

·       Outcome-Oriented Measures: Reconnecting Work to Public Value

Drawing on outcomes-based and public value traditions, outcome-oriented measures focus on whether real-world conditions are improving as a result of policy and service interventions. They shift attention away from internal activity and toward the effects experienced by citizens, communities, and regulated entities. The central question becomes not “What did we deliver?” but “What is meaningfully better as a result?”

A traditional KPI in this category might track:

·        Number of digital services launched

·        Percentage of transactions completed online

·        Delivery against a predefined feature list

An Agile, outcome-oriented measure asks a different question:

·        Has the time taken for a citizen to resolve their issue reduced?

·        Are fewer people abandoning the service or seeking workarounds?

·        Has access, fairness, or trust measurably improved for different user groups?

 

In digital transformation, this distinction is critical. Platforms can be delivered on time and to specification while failing to improve access, equity, trust, or effectiveness. Outcome-oriented measures reconnect digital investment to its public purpose, rather than to its delivery milestones.

·       Flow and System Health Measures: Seeing the Whole System

Rooted in systems thinking and service design traditions, flow measures examine how work moves end-to-end across organisational boundaries. They focus on delays, bottlenecks, rework, and failure demand, rather than individual productivity or silo performance.

Typical KPIs in this space often include:

·        Team utilisation rates

·        Volume of cases processed per unit

·        Average handling time within a single function

Agile flow and system health measures instead look at:

·        End-to-end lead time from request to resolution

·        Time spent waiting vs. time spent adding value

 

·             Rework caused by unclear policy, handoffs, or digital design

These measures reveal where the system itself constrains performance, often in places that traditional KPIs obscure. In public-sector digital transformation, they help leaders understand why services feel slow, fragmented, or frustrating to users—even when individual teams appear to be “performing well.”

·       Learning and Adaptation Measures: Making Evidence Actionable

Influenced by Agile, action-research, and complexity-informed approaches, learning measures recognise that the speed and quality of learning are performance variables in uncertain environments. They make visible how quickly assumptions are tested, risks are surfaced, and decisions adjusted based on evidence.

Traditional KPI regimes rarely measure learning directly. Instead, they tend to reward:

·       Delivery confidence

·       Adherence to plan

·       Absence of reported issues

Agile learning-oriented measures focus on:

·       How many critical assumptions have been tested in real use

·       How early risks or unintended consequences are identified

·       Whether decisions change as evidence emerges

Such measures legitimise early course correction and reward intellectual honesty. They help distinguish responsible adaptation from unmanaged drift, and make learning an explicit governance concern rather than an informal side effect of delivery.

·       Capability, Trust, and Sustainability Measures: Protecting Long-Term Performance

Informed by organisational capability, resilience, and public trust traditions, this category focuses on whether transformation strengthens or weakens the system’s ability to perform over time. It recognises that short-term delivery success can mask long-term fragility.

Traditional KPIs often focus narrowly on:

·       Delivery speed

·       Cost variance

·       Short-term efficiency gains

Agile-oriented sustainability measures pay attention to:

·       Workforce confidence, autonomy, and retention

·       Quality failures, ethical incidents, or unintended harm

·       Public trust, understanding, and willingness to use digital services

Digital transformation that exhausts staff, erodes trust, or accumulates hidden risk may appear successful in dashboards while quietly undermining future performance. These measures ensure that adaptation today does not compromise legitimacy or capability tomorrow.

 

 

CULTURE IS THE OIL: THE HIDDEN ENABLER OF AGILE MEASUREMENT

Culture, like oil in an engine, is rarely seen—but everything depends on it. The most sophisticated performance architecture, like the most powerful engine, can seize if it lacks lubrication. Agile measurement systems are no exception. They rely not only on metrics and frameworks but on the cultural conditions that allow those metrics to function as intended.

In low centralisation cultures—such as those driven by Support or Achievement—Agile metrics thrive. These environments value trust, learning, peer accountability, and evidence-based decision-making. Feedback is welcomed, and failure is treated as data, not shame. This creates the conditions for outcome-based and learning-focused metrics to surface risk early, support adaptation, and drive public value.

By contrast, in high centralisation cultures—characterised by Power or Role orientation—Agile metrics will face resistance. Hierarchy dominates. Reporting becomes defensive. Plans are protected at all costs. In such settings, learning is suppressed, early warnings are hidden, and metrics are distorted to avoid blame. The engine may appear to run—but internally, friction builds until the system fails.

Creating the enabling culture is not optional. Without it, Agile metrics will be either ignored or repurposed for control. If Ghana’s state institutions are to adopt a more adaptive, learning-oriented performance model, they must also invest in the cultural shift that makes honest feedback and responsive change safe and possible.

Just as oil is not a luxury but a necessity for engines, culture is the unseen enabler of meaningful reform. It must be treated as a core component of transformation strategy—not an afterthought.

SIGA AND THE WAY FORWARD

In Ghana, the State Interests and Governance Authority (SIGA) plays a critical role in monitoring the performance of state-owned enterprises and specified entities. As digital transformation accelerates, SIGA is well-positioned to lead this reset toward a performance model that balances operational delivery with public value creation.

Rather than replacing traditional performance tools entirely, Ghana can adopt a dual-tier performance architecture. This approach recognises that different types of measurement serve different purposes—and both are necessary.

At the institutional level (Tier 1), state entities can continue using traditional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor internal delivery. These include metrics such as timelines, outputs, cost efficiency, and adherence to plans. Their purpose is to support operational discipline, ensure project visibility, and enable Ministries, Boards, and internal oversight bodies to track whether tasks are being executed as expected.

At the national oversight level (Tier 2), SIGA could evolve its monitoring framework to include Agile-aligned measures that focus on outcomes, citizen experience, equity, institutional learning, and adaptability. These indicators would enable SIGA, Parliament, the Auditor-General, and the public to evaluate whether services are not only delivered but are making a meaningful, measurable difference in the lives of citizens. This tier helps assess public value—not just outputs, but the quality, relevance, and fairness of outcomes.

This hybrid model allows institutions to manage complexity without losing control. KPIs keep delivery on track; Agile-oriented metrics ensure that what is delivered continues to matter. It also encourages a more honest, learning-oriented culture—one where early course correction is rewarded, not penalised.

SIGA’s coordination role gives it the legitimacy to pilot and scale this approach, starting with high-impact institutions and expanding gradually. In doing so, Ghana can lead the region in building a performance governance model where compliance and curiosity are not in conflict—and where success is measured not only by what gets done, but by what gets better.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Public-sector digital transformation is often presented as a technical challenge: modernise systems, digitise services, adopt new tools. In reality, it is a governance challenge. It asks institutions built for stability to operate effectively in conditions of uncertainty, complexity, and continuous change.

Key Performance Indicators helped build the modern state. They enabled scale, consistency, and control in environments where work could be planned, predicted, and standardised. That legacy should be acknowledged, not dismissed. But the conditions that made KPIs effective are no longer universal.

Digital transformation removes the box within which traditional performance management operates. When outcomes are emergent, user behaviour unpredictable, and learning inseparable from delivery, certainty-based metrics do more than fail to help—they actively distort behaviour. They reward adherence to plan over responsiveness to evidence, suppress learning, and create the illusion of progress long after reality has diverged.

Agile offers a different way forward—not as a delivery method, but as a mindset for governing in uncertainty. It delivers change through learning, and frames learning as the path to better decisions and better outcomes, with public value as the central objective. Yet this mindset cannot take root while success continues to be defined through metrics that assume predictability and penalise adaptation.

Moving beyond KPIs does not mean abandoning accountability. On the contrary, it demands a more mature form of accountability—one grounded in evidence, judgement, and transparency, not prediction. It requires leaders to be accountable not for being right from the start, but for how they respond to what is learned along the way.

But mindset alone is not enough. Measurement practices are embedded in institutions, shaped by governance systems, and constrained by culture. For Agile measurement to take root, there must be both an institutional pathway and a cultural foundation.

In Ghana, institutions like SIGA are well-positioned to lead this evolution as the public sector advances its digital transformation agenda. By adopting a dual-tier measurement model—combining internal KPIs to maintain delivery discipline with Agile-aligned metrics to track public value—SIGA can help state institutions balance control with adaptability. However, this shift also demands a cultural transition: from performance-as-compliance to performance-as-learning. Without the enabling culture, even the best-designed systems will eventually seize.

For policymakers and senior public servants, the question is no longer whether digital transformation should be Agile in name. It is whether our systems of measurement, assurance, and governance are willing to evolve to reflect how change actually happens. Without that shift, investments in technology, skills, and reform will continue to underperform—not because teams lack capability, but because the system itself is misaligned with the behaviours transformation requires.

The choice is not between control and chaos. It is between clinging to outdated metrics—and undertaking a bold, necessary reset of how success is defined. In a digital age, the future of effective government depends less on how well we measure performance against plan, and more on how well we govern change when the plan no longer holds. This is not a rejection of measurement. It is a call to reclaim it—not as a tool of control, but as a mechanism for learning, legitimacy, and leadership in complexity. A true Agile mind-reset is not a slogan; it is a governance imperative for public sector digital transformation. Moving beyond dashboards to deliver real public value.

Selected References

Agile Manifesto (2001), Manifesto for Agile Software Development, agilemanifesto.org

Bevan, G. and Hood, C. (2006), What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system, Public Administration 84(3), 517–538.

Harrison, R. (1993). Organisational culture model: Power, Role, Achievement (Task), and Support (Person) cultures.

Moore, M. (1995), Creating public value, Harvard University Press

O'Connor, S. (2025, November 27). Agile strategy: A modern approach to planning in 2026. Monday.com Blog. https://monday.com/blog/rnd/agile-strategy

OECD (2019), Digital government review, OECD Publishing

Seddon, J. (2008), Systems thinking in the public sector, Triarchy Press

Snowden, D. and Boone, M. (2007), A leader’s framework for decision making, Harvard Business Review